Ethical and Non-Ethical PR Campaign Analysis

Ethical and Non-Ethical PR Campaign Analysis
You are to research and identify three (3) “front group” campaigns that you believe have been instigated and implemented by some specific person, entity, organization or company.

Select and applying the most appropriate typology for each of your three (3) “front group” campaigns, utilizing one or more of the four – model typology for public relations practice that was formulated by Professors James Grunig of the University of Maryland and Todd Hunt of Rutgers University in their 1984 book of Managing Public Relations. Grunig’s four models of public relations are: (1) press agentry/publicity (a one-way, “hype” model to advocate, with little or no research involved); (2) public information (based not on persuasion but on journalistic ideal and integrity); (3) two-way asymmetric scientific persuasion is its purpose, with imbalanced effects) and (4) two-way symmetric (gaining mutual understanding through solicited feedback is the main purpose).

You are to identify and state, specifically who (the person(s), organization(s), etc.,) that is responsible for the campaigns, what you believe to be based on your personal research their public relations goals, objectives, methodology, strategies, tactics, etc., and whether you believe each campaign was ethical or not and your reasoning.

Paper MUST be typed, has a cover page, including the title of the paper, date, course number, and students name. The body of the paper, regardless of length, in a business needs to include a table of contents that ties to your headings and appropriate analysis, sub-headings, conclusions and recommendations and page numbers, a summary of your conclusions and recommendations and meet common business citations in APA format. NOTE: Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference source for any of these papers.

Reminder: A front group is an effort of a company/organization to influence public policy by disguising the true identity of organizations and its members by developing one or several internal or external grassroots organizations to achieve various public relations goals. They also, sometimes create and use “Astroturf” Internet sites and engage in “Digital Brand Assassination.”

More than half of professionals surveyed said it is unethical for parties to fail to mention that their impetus for contacting a government official or other organization is due to a vested interest or membership in another organization sponsoring the campaign.

PRSA specifically condemns the use of front groups and advocates complete and honest disclosure of sources and sponsorship of all information provided to the media.

Additional Background Information

As you use the Web to research your short report topics, I suggest that you first identify the appropriate government agency that is responsible for collecting and analyzing data before it is provided for mass consumption. Therefore, it is wise to develop a basic understanding of the term before you search for data or information regarding the topic.
If this is done you can test the validity of the data and make informed decisions as their usefulness for your reports.

The reality of the real world is that mass media sources are seldom unbiased, because they are now owned by large corporations that use them to assist in pushing their personal agendas, therefore, one of your major problems is finding valid and relatively unbiased data and information before you can determine the true validity of what is being said or written.

A very useful technique for determining source credibility can be found on pages 230-231 of your text that indicates that source credibility is based on three factors.
“One is Expertise! The first question is does the audience perceive the person as an expert on the subject? The second most important question is does the person speaking, writing, promoting the concept or idea really possess the education, knowledge, degrees, certificates from accredited Universities, credential zed training programs, or relevant work experience in the topical area to serve as a spokesperson!

Companies, for example, use engineers and scientists to answer news conference questions about how engineering process works whether an ingredient in the manufacturing process of a product presents a potential hazard.

However, in mainstream media, they often use personalities who appear to be acting as experts but have no direct experience in the areas in which they address a significant topic but are always mostly speaking from a script or teleprompter because they really do not possess core knowledge regarding the subject.

Therefore you must research in detail and “Vet” (Prove they are real and experienced in the area based on recognized credentials), the announcer’s background to determine if they are really a person who possesses the expertise to comment on the issues of the day.

The second component is Sincerity! The primary question here is does the person come across as believing what he or she is saying, which is often referred to as believability? Simon Cowell, hypercritical judge on American Idol, may not be considered an expert on the countries and recipients of aid from charity special Idol Gives Back, but he does get high ratings for his bristling sincerity. A second critical component of sincerity, is the person speaking from their heart or are they reading or speaking from a teleprompter or script, where someone else has prepared the comments and they are merely a spokesperson for other people’s ideas. In reality, they are manipulating and gaming the audience because they sound good!

The third component, which is even more elusive, is Charisma. Is the individual attractive, self-assured, inarticulate, projecting an image of competence and leadership? Former president Clinton is an excellent example. His commanding presence and polished public speaking make him a credit charismatic figure in a highly paid speaker.

Throughout his leadership in the Haitian earthquake rescue mission operations, clicking project and are of authenticity and conviction that America should take constructive action to help Haiti rebuild.”
Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York during the 911 crisis, took command of the city in the situation, and acted in a manner that showed that he was a decisive leader in support of his troops, and had the best interest of America and his city at heart.

Research indicates today that expertise is less important than sincerity and charisma if celebrities are used as spokespersons. Celebrities tend to have fewer credentials that make them experts in any area and what makes them important is that many people in their target charisma category care about what they appear to say. Some examples are the women on the view, Bono, Snoop Dog, Samuel L. Jackson, etc., Matt Lauer, Katy Cori, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddux. Their primary person purpose is to call attention to the product or service. Another purpose is to associate the celebrities’ popularity with the product. This technique is called transfer.

Some kinds of celebrities however are more persuasive than others. An Ad-week Media Harris poll, for example, found that celebrity business leaders endorsing a product are more persuasive overall than athletes, television stars, and movie stars. Age, however is a factor. Business leaders are more persuasive with people over 45 years old while athletes, television stars, and movie stars are more persuasive in people under 45.
In addition, former political figures of the lease persuasive celebrities on among all age groups.

PRSA specifically condemns the efforts of those organizations, sometimes known as “front groups”, that seek to influence the public policy process by disguising or obscuring the true identity of their members or by implying representation of a much more broadly based group than exists. Almost every “save the environment” organization has spawned a counter group.

For example, the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, composed of 25 “green” groups, posed as a grassroots movement opposing the International Coalition to save British Columbia’s Rainforests. It was later revealed that the Canadian timber industry paid Burson-Marsteller $1 million to create the alliance, whose aim was to convince the public that environmental destruction has been exaggerated and to persuade lawmakers to abolish unprofitable environmental regulations.

Names given to many of the organizations are confusing, if not downright deceptive.
For example, according to the “Free Flow of Information” provision, public relations people should not bribe reporters or offer expensive gifts. The “Disclosure of Information” provision forbids the use of front groups, for example, “Citizens for a Safe America” when, in fact, the client is the National Rifle Association.

I personally endorse no specific sources, however, I ask you to practice discernment in all media consumed, read each source carefully and think critically about everything presented as fact and know when it is really someone’s opinion!